619 
R3 
opy 1 




V 



What American 
Neutrality Should Mean 



A PROTEST 



BY 



RICHARD S. RAUH 

PITTSBURGH," PA. 



PRICE, TEN CENTS 



COPTBIQBT, 1915 

<** BY RICHARD S. RAUH 

Pittsburgh, Pa. 



Dedicated 

to 

Neutral America 



'A 



\3 









What American 
Neutrality Should Mean 

An Answer to Charles H. Joseph 

BY RICHARD S. RAUH 

Director of Academy of Science and Art Dramatic Section ; 
Treasurer of Drama League of America, Pittsburgh Section; 
President of the Philo-Dramatists; Associate Editor of the 
Criterion; Editor of the "Bulletin," Pittsburgh Association of 
Credit Men. 



A PROEM 

With satisfactory cause or without sufficient justi- 
fication, the fact nevertheless remains that the majority 
of the American people, the greater part of the Ameri- 
can press and the stronger proportion of the American 
body politic have been waging a relentless campaign, 
directly or indirectly against Germany and her allies 
since the inception of the War of 1914. For the first 
time in many generations the doctrine of "the Square 
Deal," always characteristic of the citizens of the 
United States in their history, has been tested and pro- 
tested. In the vaunted crucible of civilization the 
people of this nation have been tried, but the proud 
development of their spirit of fairness, of impartiality, 
of neutrality at last has been challenged! 

Public sentiment in America has been over- 
whelmingly favorable to the Triple Entente since the 
opening of hostilities and while such popular feeling 
may have ground for existence, the most discouraging 
breach of good faith has been exhibited in the blind 
acceptance of practically all that reaches American 
shores through British-censored cables. When in 
doubt, the Teuton is strongly condemned; when guilt- 
less he is conscientiously maligned; when guilty, he 
is infamously abused. On the other hand, the cause 
of the Allies is more fortunate, for it has won the silent 
as well as the enthusiastic support of the majority of 
a great many so-called neutral Americans. 

To the student of International Law, it is a 
perfectly familiar fact at this date, after ten months of 
brutal butchery, that scores of international statutes 
included in the conventions, from the Declaration of 
Paris in 1856, to the Declaration of London in 1909, 

4 

©CI.A406325 

JUN 10 1915 



not forgetting the First and Second Hague Peace 
Conferences, — have been flagrantly violated by BOTH 
contending factions. The truly neutral American 
should therefore be prepared to condemn both parties 
for their infractions and infringements of International 
Law, but it is disgracefully obvious that only Germany 
has been generally accused without trial in the court 
of a prejudiced public opinion. 

Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, 
in his superb Proclamation of American Neutrality to 
the people of America, on August fourth, stated that 
among other violations of neutrality the FIRST act 
which was "forbidden to be done" was "Accepting and 
exercising a commission to serve EITHER of the said 
belligerents by land or sea against the other belligerent." 
He was careful not to say that they were privileged to 
assist BOTH belligerents. But despite this early 
admonition, his citizens have refused to be guided by 
his lofty concept of international morality, until it is 
now known that over one hundred million dollars 
worth of war material has already been shipped to the 
fighting forces of the Allies from the only great 
neutral (?) nation of the world! 

In his definition of neutrality as it applies to 
International Law, L. Oppenheim* states that it is 
"the attitude of impartiality adopted by third States 
towards belligerents and recognized by belligerents, 
such attitude creating RIGHTS and DUTIES between 
the impartial States and the belligerents." And he 
continues by saying that "Neutrality as an attitude of 
impartiality involves the DUTY of ABSTAINING from 
assisting EITHER belligerent either actively or passive- 
ly." It is here noted that this renowned authority is 
watchful not to include the thought that it involves 
the duty of ASSISTING BOTH belligerents. 

international Law, Vol. II, pages 361 and 365. 

5 



With scarcely a conflicting precedent, the head of 
a neutral government in time of war, has always 
cautioned its citizens to endeavor to refrain from being 
a party to the bloody conflict on either or both sides, 
and has promised no protection to the transgressor of 
the edict. President Washington on April 22, 1 793, 
held "that whosoever of the citizens of the United 
States shall render himself liable to punishment or 
forfeiture under the law of nations by committing, 
aiding or abetting hostilities against any of the said 
powers, or by carrying to any of them those articles 
which are deemed contraband by the modern usage of 
nations, will not receive the protection of the United 
States against such punishment or forfeiture." On 
August 22, 1870, President Grant made the identical 
proclamation. 

By demanding from Germany an explanation of 
the sinking or partial destruction of his own neutral 
ships carrying contraband of war, an interesting 
international question is consequently suggested by 
President Wilson. For if private citizens' ships carry- 
ing contraband of war are to be protected by the 
American government, the United States could well be 
declared unneutral, since it is held by J. B. Moore** 
that the supply of materials of war "constitutes on the 
part of the individuals who engage in it a participation 
in hostilities and as such is confessedly an unneutral 
act. The private citizen undertakes the business at his 
own risk and against this risk his government cannot 
assure him protection WITHOUT MAKING ITSELF 
APARTYTO HIS UNNEUTRAL ACT." Mr. Wilson 
must now decide to prohibit sending war munitions 
abroad and thereby declare himself a sincere neutral 
or admit that the belligerents are entitled to deal with 
his contraband-laden ships according to international 
practice and admit himself technically neutral. 

**Digest of International Law, Vol. VII, pages 748 and 749. 

6 



The people of this nation should know that the 
prohibition of the criminal exportation of American 
arms and ammunition will insure true American 
neutrality and a more speedy termination of the 
European carnage. It is therefore in the hands of this 
government OF true Americans, FOR true Americans 
and BY true Americans that the prolongation or 
cessation of hostilities resides. 

Pittsburgh, Pa., May 30, 1915. 

R. S. R 



BEGINNING OF THE END* 

We feel that the destruction of the Lusitania 
with hundreds of men, women and children may have 
a tendency to bring the war-mad countries of Europe 
to a realization of the truth that they have slipped 
back to the ages when men were nothing more nor less 
than mere animals, the strongest being the mightiest. 
But one will thumb the pages of history in vain either 
in pagan or Christian lands to find more cruelty and 
hellishness than have been evidenced during this con- 
test between "civilized" nations in the twentieth 
century. 

The best thought of Germany surely cannot 
approve of the murder of hundreds of innocent women 
and babies, unless their moral nature has been entirely 
perverted and we scarcely believe this. That England 
is to blame in a great degree for creating conditions 
that made possible this wholesale slaughter cannot be 
denied, but that does not lessen in the slightest degree 
the fact that Germany completely turned her back on 
every rule of civilized warfare (which in reality is a 
contradiction in terms, because war and civilization 
have nothing in common) and leaped back to the days 
of primitive man, when she sent unwarned and un- 
armed men, women and children to an untimely 
grave. 

This act has produced such a feeling of horror 
throughout the world and has engendered such a 
complete revulsion of feeling toward not alone Ger- 
many, but England as well, that we believe as a result 

*(An editorial published in The Criterion following the sinking of the 
Lusitania, and written by the Editor, Charles H. Joseph, which prompted 
the answer and article which follows.) 

8 



of the negotiations about to begin between this country 
and Germany, peace may be more rapidly advanced 
than seemed possible a few days ago. 

It is pertinent to observe at this juncture that in 
answer to the Pro-German spokesmen who uphold the 
Lusitania horror on the ground that England brought 
it on herself and that the Americans who went on 
board did so at their peril, we would suggest that they 
ask themselves if the American nation, which makes 
no such swashbuckling claim to Kultur as does Ger- 
many, would be or could be guilty of such an inhumane 
act. Think it over without prejudice and try to picture 
public opinion in this government commending such 
a tragedy. The longer this war continues the more it 
becomes evident that this country's sense of right- 
eousness is more highly developed than that of the 
older nations. Even during the Civil War, General 
Lee took the position that attacks should be made 
ONLY ON SOLDIERS and NOT ON CIVILIANS. 
When we invested Vera Cruz instead of taking the 
leading Mexican citizens and executing them as an 
"example" and to prevent sniping, burn and kill and 
pillage, the United States showed the way that a 
civilized people should act. But everything is "dif- 
ferent" in Europe; of course everything that doesn't 
suit the warring nations is "different" — the situation 
must be dealt with "differently." There is one big 
difference — and if you want to know what it is read 
President Wilson's speech delivered last Monday 
night in Philadelphia. 

In the meantime we shall have no war with Ger- 
many unless the Germans have reached the final 
stages of raving lunacy. While we haven't much of 
a standing army nor much of a navy, we do have 
lots of time to accumulate them, and our resources 
are inexhaustible. 

9 



WHAT AMERICAN 
NEUTRALITY SHOULD MEAN 

BY RICHARD S. RAUH 

Your editorial, Mr. Joseph, called "Beginning of 
the End," which was published in last week's issue of 
the Criterion, was well meant; and if it was originally 
intended to convey the thought that the visualized 
horror of the sinking of the ocean greyhound, Lusitania, 
should prove the turning point in the war because a 
war-crime of one country might result in turning the 
introspective eyes of all nations to see the depths of 
depravity to which they are stooping, — you would 
have won the hearty support of all in your plea. 
But in your discussion of the "cruelty and hellishness" 
of the European butchery you have unfortunately laid 
undue emphasis upon the barbarity of the German 
soldiers, German leaders and German people. You 
have truly shown that civilization is fast slipping back- 
ward, but you have failed to convince your readers 
that EVERY NATION IS EQUALLY RESPONSI- 
BLE FOR THIS RETROGRESSION. In other 
words, you have singled out a particular country upon 
whose shoulders you place the greater part of blame and 
you conclude by scoring Germany for her "inhumane 
act." 

In replying to this one-sided view of an internat- 
ional problem it would be well in the first place, to 
consider an important fact which might prove startling 
but nevertheless incontrovertible, I believe. History 
will some day show that the country which most 
successfully encouraged the slaughter of men, was not 
Germany, but AMERICA. Strange as this may first 
sound, still stranger will it appear when I say further 
that before finding fault with Germany for "completely 

10 



turning her back on civilized warfare," (as you con- 
tend), you must not blind yourself to the truth that 
America has defied the moral code and the civilized 
code of humanity by gashing an already torn wound. 
A NEUTRAL COUNTRY IS A NATION WHICH 
IN NO WAY PARTICIPATES IN A WAR BE- 
TWEEN OTHER STATES. It is NOT, as has been 
so often erroneously supposed, a country which is 
willing to assist ALL contending factions. Webster 
defines "neutrality" as "the state of taking no part on 
either side," — and this is the construction placed upon 
neutrality by the CIVILIZED world and accepted 
in all INTERNATIONAL CODES. He is careful 
not to say that it is a state of taking the part of both 
sides. Neutrality is "indifference" (as Webster further 
explains the term) and it is not active encouragement, 
as so many English-Americans have made it. 

Think honestly of the country of which you speak 
as having "leaped back to the days of primitive man" 
and then compare such a land to a nation which is 
openly and proudly supporting the murder of millions 
of husbands, fathers, brothers, sons. No argument 
however subtle, no logic however advanced, will be 
able to convince CIVILIZED man that active assist- 
ance in war even though it be indirect, is the honor- 
able position for ANY nation, let alone a NEUTRAL 
nation to take. What holy hypocrisy! Think of a 
country like America, Mr. Joseph — your country and 
mine — think of its involved trickery! When Presi- 
dent Wilson asked our country to pray for peace, some 
of our citizens who had heard his stirring appeal for 
neutrality were shipping cases of cartridges and car- 
loads of shrapnel to the warring factions. For the 
past nine months representatives of the Belgian govern- 
ment have come to us to ask for our support to supply 
the people with food and clothing and NONE HAS 



SUGGESTED THAT WE REFRAIN FROM SHIP- 
PING AMMUNITION TO THE NATIONS AT WAR 
TO SHORTEN THE CARNAGE. We are continually 
shown the horrors of the starving non-combatants of 
Belgium, but who is protesting that the more munitions 
of war we make, the longer will such starvation con- 
tinue? We try to justify our position of accepting 
millions of dollars from the Triple Entente for war 
material by paying a meager part of that money back 
to Belgium as a recompense for her toleration of Amer- 
ica's prolonging hostilities. Instead of removing the 
cause of Belgian suffering we aggravate it and then 
wickedly attempt to convince the world that we want 
to cure the disease. 

It is a perfectly familiar fact that if the United 
States today would refuse to send any more cannon 
food to Europe, Germany would be substantially bene- 
fited. It is not for us to consider who would be the 
winner or loser. Our position is to define the HONOR- 
ABLE, the MORAL, the INTERNATIONALLY 
ETHICAL attitude to assume and then to practice 
what we know to be right. I will never be able to 
understand how a nation of civilized citizens can apa- 
thetically witness the continual exportation of death- 
dealing instruments hiding all the while behind the 
cloak of deceitful neutrality. So many pro-English 
Americans (?) have openly admitted to me that after 
this war is over, and in the event that another should 
occur, it should then be the policy of a neutral country 
to refrain from sending food, money or ammunition to 
the fighting parties, but, they conclude, "since America 
has already freely proposed that she would send bullets 
to ALL countries at war and since England has a navy 
strong enough to insure her securing this material, we 
must pursue our policy until the flag of truce on one 
side or the other, is raised." This, you will admit, is 

12 



a puerile argument. For if a nation is to admit its 
wrong and then is to sink deeper in the slough of murder 
with each succeeding day, it sets a tragic example to 
mankind. In view of these facts your position becomes 
all the more ludicrous when you assert that "The 
longer this war continues the more it becomes evident 
that this country's sense of righteousness is more highly 
developed than that of the older nations." If there is 
righteousness in our present attitude, my telescopic 
and microscopic examination of the points in the case has 
left me without tangible proof of it. It is not yet too late 
for the United States to join the ranks of all other 
neutral countries and refuse to assist in the slaughter. 
I am only afraid that President Wilson is too busy 
talking peace and encouraging war to alter his present 
course. 

You say in your editorial referring to the sinking 
of the Lusitania, that "The best thought of Germany 
surely cannot approve of the murder of hundreds of 
innocent women and babies, unless their moral nature 
has been entirely perverted and we SCARCELY believe 
this." (The enlarged letters are mine.) Therefore 
there is evidently a remnant of doubt in your mind 
about the perversion of the German mind, but I must 
immediately assure you that the intelligent German 
people no more applaud the destruction of the great 
Cunard liner than the thoughtful English people cheer 
the wholesale murder of Jewish non-combatants in 
Russian Poland who are declared spies by the Russians 
and peremptorily flogged or burned to death whenever 
the Cossacks wish a little stimulating amusement. 

Let us understand the situation a little more 
clearly. I am confident that you are quite as enthu- 
siastic an advocate of peace as I am. I know that you 
will always use your virile pen to condemn any jingo- 
ism or war chatter. But acknowledging that the 

13 



nations are at war, irrespective of the men who sent 
them and their reasons for sending them there, we 
both must confess that since warfare reduces man to 
murderer, the revolting horrors which we hear and read 
of each day, are grotesque plays of a brutal game. The 
crimes committed on the sea or on the battlefield are 
the inevitable results of a system which has always 
been condemned but never suppressed. I feel as you 
do that this war should never have been, — that it is a 
crime against humanity. But I cannot sentimentally 
cry aloud each time a ghastly blow is struck by one 
side or the other, for I have learned to know that there 
never was a time when man-killing instruments were 
so cruelly perfected as in this advanced (?) century 
in which we are living. And when I confess, therefore, 
that I expect to hear of more vicious and atrocious 
iniquities being committed before the war is many days 
older, I am simply drawing an inevitable conclusion. 
Be very clear on one point however: I am not en- 
deavoring to justify the criminal acts of any nation. 
I am merely emphasizing a platitudinous fact that 
"War is Hell." 

As an American citizen, then, I condone neither 
side, but I flay both factions, I certainly am not will- 
ing to join either entente. But inasmuch as the 
"Triple Alliance" (now consisting of Germany, Austro- 
Hungary — and Turkey,) has been the victim of a gross 
American conspiracy in which the United States has 
failed miserably and despicably to preserve its neu- 
trality on the issues of the international complication, 
and since you, too, have given a partial version of the 
case, I desire to remind you of a few fundamental facts 
with which every American should be made familiar. 

It is my frank challenge which must be refuted 
without equivocation, that no unbiased, free-minded 
individual can draw a line of demarcation between a 

14 



policy like England's bent upon the starvation and 
eventual extermination of the Germans and the de- 
cision of the Germans to capture all ammunition of 
the Allies no matter if it results in the torpedoing of 
English craft with terrific loss of life. I demand to 
know the difference between slowly starving non-com- 
batants and killing them outright. Death in both 
cases results. In the former instance non-combatants 
are powerless to survive while in the latter case they 
may choose between traveling in the war zone or 
remaining at home. Both processes of destruction 
fill me with revulsion for war but I am not prepared 
to condemn one country and condone the crimes of 
the other. Allow me simply to insert the word 
"England" for "Germany" in one of your sentences 
which I have already quoted, and permit me also to 
interchange the word "starvation" for "murder," and 
then if you can convince me that the Teutons are the 
only barbarians, I shall not only shift from my present 
neutral position, but I shall become a pronounced anti- 
German. Your sentence would now read, "The best 
thought of ENGLAND surely cannot approve of 
the STARVATION of hundreds of innocent women 
and babies, unless their moral nature has been entirely 
perverted and we scarcely believe this." Remember, 
furthermore that whereas HUNDREDS of women and 
babies lost their lives in the sinking of the Lusitania, 
MILLIONS of mothers and children will be sacrificed 
on the altar of war if England's starvation policy is 
successful. Can your imagination conceive of any de- 
cision more cruel, more contemptible and more coward- 
ly than a country's open confession of its desire to 
starve the non-fighting masses of its enemy? You 
state that "Even during the Civil War, General Lee 
took the position that attacks should be made ONLY 
ON SOLDIERS and NOT ON CIVILIANS." Be so 

15 



good as to apply this to England then, Mr. Joseph, and 
see if the British are not equally, — in fact, not more 
culpable than the Teutons. For it is England's desire 
to end the war by slowly starving non-combatants, 
whereas it is Germany's avowed purpose to capture 
the ammunition of the Allies and thus prevent them 
from fighting. Which to you is the more humane 
after all — ending hostilities by starving cannons or by 
starving innocent mothers, daughters, wives and 
babies? And this is not pro-German sentiment. It 
is actually a fair American version of the horrible 
European holocaust, justifying neither side but dis- 
passionately calculating the effects of the policies of 
both warring countries. 

Further on in your editorial, pointing to the Lusi- 
tania tragedy, you remind the German "spokesmen" 
to "ask themselves if the American nation, which 
makes no swashbuckling claim to Kultur as does 
Germany, would be or could be guilty of such an in- 
humane act." You tell them to "think it over with- 
out prejudice and try to picture public opinion in this 
government commending such a tragedy." I would 
immediately answer that in sending one torpedo into 
an enemy's ship loaded with explosives and ammuni- 
tion and carrying Canadian troops (as has been un- 
deniably shown), Germany was within her absolute 
RIGHT, but even admitting that the sinking of a vessel 
and the resultant loss of twelve hundred guiltless 
individuals is an unpardonable offense, is it not vastly 
more criminal for a disinterested (?) nation to be 
sending enough war material to slaughter hundreds of 
thousands of men? And so I reply to you by stating 
that America IS guilty of "such an inhumane act" 
and a more vicious and inhumane act, if you please. 
As to the German "spokesmen" picturing public 
opinion in the United States commending a disaster 

16 



like the Lusitania, these "spokesmen" need not permit 
their consciences to prick them unduly in the destruc- 
tion of this ocean liner; for if America is so obdurately 
indifferent to the present exportation of artillery and 
artillery food she would evidently be quite as stoical 
in the event of her own submarine's torpedoing an 
enemy's ammunition-laden ship. 

Finally you declare that "When we invested Vera 
Cruz, instead of taking the leading Mexican citizens 
and executing them as an 'example' and to prevent 
sniping, burn and kill and pillage, the United States 
showed the way a civilized people should act." In 
justice to the Germans let us hastily view their mili- 
tary position in the war. If Pennsylvania were Ger- 
many, New York were England, Maryland were France, 
and Ohio were Russia, — you would then know what it 
means for a smaller nation like Germany to be sur- 
rounded by a host of foes. I take it that when Ger- 
many knew at the conclusion of the first few weeks of 
the war, the number of enemies with whom she would 
be forced to contend, she realized then as never before 
that she was fighting for her life, — for her position on 
the globe. Confronted by overwhelming armies 
Germany fought hard and when an enemy violated an 
agreement either by sniping at her soldiers as they 
entered a conquered village or by cutting the throats 
of the fighters as they peacefully slept in the huts of 
the towns, she paid them in full for their unwarranted 
acts. The fact that after the burning and bombarding 
of a few Belgian towns for flagrant transgressions of 
the code of war, no more sniping or throat-cutting 
occurred is sufficient evidence that the Teutons' 
admonitions and early destruction were wise war 
expedients. Realizing that Germany is literally en- 
circled by enemies, it is not difficult to understand 
the extreme measures she has taken. 

17 



On the other hand it is almost folly to compare 
the action of an immense nation like America when the 
navy was dispatched to rush ships to little Mexico, 
with a much smaller country like Germany hemmed in 
by foes. If the United States had been "fighting for 
her very existence" as Germany is to-day and if the 
states which I have enumerated were surrounding Penn- 
sylvania and were our own enemies, America would 
stop at nothing and in all probability would be justi- 
fied in burning Vera Cruz to ashes. Moreover, as the 
case now stands, President Wilson's policy was not as 
successful in Mexico as he thought it would be. 

I am afraid, Mr. Joseph, that you forget, when 
you demand that Germany adhere to a civilized code in 
warfare, that you do not ask Belgium, France, England, 
Russia and America to pursue the same faultless con- 
duct. Of course every country should act as morally 
as possible under stress of battle and I excuse none but 
I am not blinding myself, as an American citizen, to 
the other side of the question which neutral (?) Amer- 
ica would not even have us consider. And before 
we leave the thought of Mexico it is indeed pertinent 
to quote a line of President Wilson's ^speech to Congress 
on August 27, 1913, on the Mexican situation as it 
relates to our discussion of neutrality. "I deem it my 
duty to exercise the authority conferred upon me by 
the law of March 14, 1912, to see to it that neither 
side to the struggle now going on in Mexico receive 
any assistance from this side of the border. I shall fol- 
low the best practice of nations in the matter of neu- 
trality by forbidding the exportation of arms or mu- 
nitions of war of any kind from the United States to 
any part of the Republic of Mexico — a policy suggested 
by several interesting precedents and certainly dictated 
by many manifest considerations of practical expedi- 
ency." What has happened to Mr. Wilson's convict- 
ions in the present war? 

18 



As far as the cruelty of the Germans is concerned, 
if every barbarous act of a German soldier or officer is 
multiplied fifty fold it would in no way compare with 
the atrocities being committed by the Cossack ghouls. 
Read the weekly columns of the paper of which you 
are Editor, and it will require no further proof of mine 
that the pillaging and ravaging of the Russians is the 
vilest exhibition of any heathen people in history. I 
am only surprised that England, the enlightened coun- 
try of which you speak, would care to ally herself with 
this blood-reeking nation. 

The disgraceful conduct of Europe, I agree with 
you, has set the world back many years, but I do not 
concur with your assumption that it is Germany that is 
setting the pace. Each nation is as guilty as the other 
and America is a partner to the blood spilling. There- 
fore, I, as an American citizen, make this formal protest 
against President Wilson's cruel determination to pro- 
long the carnage in which countless thousands of the 
brawn and brain of the contending countries are being 
murdered; in which millions of innocent non-combat- 
ants, Belgian and German, are being starved; in which 
once rich nations are being bankrupted; in which an 
inglorious era of history is being registered in the book 
of life. Woodrow Wilson, at this late date, like Mac- 
beth, unquestionably sees the bloody dagger dangling 
before his eyes. 

There is only this to be said: A neutral nation 
should be indifferent to the winner or loser of a war. 
Not caring which side conquers it must encourage, in 
no way, the prolongation of butchery. And the only 
activity which a neutral nation should attempt when 
other countries are grappling at each other's throats is 
a conscientious and continual struggle for peace! 



19 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 914 112 71 



